If Election result 2016 declared illegal, what then?

Impeachment is the bringing of charges by a vote in the House of Representatives. Nixon was not impeached. He resigned before that happened. Bill Clinton was impreached but was not convicted by the Senate.

If the Democrats regain the majority in the House it is possible for Trump to be impeached. It's not likely that he will be convicted by the Senate. To impeach in the House only requires a majority. To convict in the Senate requires a 2/3rd's majority. That isn't likely to happen.

Furthermore, Democrats have to consider how this would affect their chances of winning the next Presidential election (or the upcoming mid-term elections). Trump voters are still out there so if something is done to make them feel their voices aren't being heard we could have more "Trumps" elected.

Click to expand...

I am sure Mueller knows all this, as does his well experienced team. This is why I tend to feel that the Mueller investigation may have a deeper law enforcment agenda than attempting to fuel futile impeachment procedings.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

I am sure Mueller knows all this, as does his well experienced team. This is why I tend to feel that the Mueller investigation may have a deeper agenda than attempting to fuel futile impeachment procedings.

Click to expand...

Mueller isn't political, he (the FBI and the Department of Justice) aren't trying to influence elections.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

nor do we have a system where one party can call for early elections if it benefits them.

Click to expand...

"them" being the voter majority which is a quite interesting because it seems like the action of electing a president is the act of installing a dictator.
it "appears" that Presidents are devoid of being democratically accountable to the political system and thus only able to be ousted by their own party.
in Aussie thats quite a sad tale of the worst that such systems have, senates etc all sitting there taking tax dollars.

the supposed touted model of capitalism that declares a need for accountability of product and expense is devoid in these ideological manifestations of pretend capitalsm.
what i am not sure of is if the working model is an appeasement of poverty to prevent rebelion or if it is just unbriddled greed and facism exercising its will to manage the lowest possible form of objection to extortion.

"them" being the voter majority which is a quite interesting because it seems like the action of electing a president is the act of installing a dictator.
it "appears" that Presidents are devoid of being democratically accountable to the political system and thus only able to be ousted by their own party.
in Aussie thats quite a sad tale of the worst that such systems have, senates etc all sitting there taking tax dollars.

the supposed touted model of capitalism that declares a need for accountability of product and expense is devoid in these ideological manifestations of pretend capitalsm.
what i am not sure of is if the working model is an appeasement of poverty to prevent rebelion or if it is just unbriddled greed and facism exercising its will to manage the lowest possible form of objection to extortion.

an arguement for philosophers & psychologists

Click to expand...

You don't seem to really understand the system. What system is used in your country?

So hey I have argued this point before but will do it again...
Say for example we have the following scenario:

1000 Australian walkers volunteer to door knock in support of the Democrats Presidential campaign. They pay for all their own expenses and receive no remuneration. They flew in from Australia with the sole purpose of effecting the election outcome.
1000 Russian walkers volunteer to door knock in support of the Republican Presidential campaign. They pay for all their own expenses and receive no remuneration. They flew in from Russia with the sole purpose of effecting the election outcome.

Have any laws been broken by either the Australians or the Russians?

If so, then there are a heap of Aussies in a whole lot of trouble....

Click to expand...

The 1000 Aussies and Ruskies could volunteer to conditionally work for an election campaign as long as there was no compensation involved. If this activity was being subsidized by their native governments I don't think it would be legal.

Volunteer activity

Generally, an individual (including a foreign national) may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The Act provides this volunteer "exemption" as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone. The Commission has addressed applicability of this exemption to several situations involving volunteer activity by a foreign national, as explained below.

In AO 2014-20 (Make Your Laws PAC), the Commission concluded that a political action committee could accept assistance from a foreign national in developing intellectual property for the PAC, such as trademarks, graphics, and website design because the services accepted by the PAC would fall under the volunteer exemption. Similarly, in AO 2004-26 (Weller), the Commission held that a foreign national could attend, speak at campaign events for a federal candidate, and solicit contributions to the campaign. However, the Commission cautioned that the foreign national could not manage or participate in any of the campaign committee’s decision-making processes. See also AOs 2007-22 (Hurysz) and 1987-25 (Otaola).

In MUR 5987, the Commission examined a situation in which a foreign national provided an uncompensated musical concert performance as a volunteer for a federal candidate’s campaign as part of a fundraising event. The candidate’s campaign had paid all of the costs of hosting the concert, including the rental of the venue and equipment and providing security. The performer had merely provided his uncompensated volunteer services to the campaign and had not participated in any of the campaign’s decision-making. Based on these facts, the Commission found no reason to believe that the foreign national or the federal candidate’s committee had violated the Act’s foreign national prohibition.

This is some of the “volunteer” work done by concerned Russian individuals.

1) Russia launched a massive social media campaign to sow discord

An indictment that Mueller secured in February charged 13 Russian nationals and three entities with conducting an illegal "information warfare" effort to disrupt the 2016 presidential election and assist Trump’s candidacy. And it offered a detailed timeline of how the plot occurred — saying the scheme took years to carry out, cost millions of dollars and involved dozens of people, some of whom journeyed to the United States or organized political rallies on American soil.

2) Hackers went after the Democrats

Last week’s indictments against 12 Russian intelligence laid out the other half of the alleged plot: the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and other liberal political groups, as well as aides to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Russian intelligence resources were directed towards the election in a criminal fashion. Russian agents funded media adds and rallies to influence voters. If cooperation can be shown between these activities and the Trump campaign, they too may be criminally liable.

The 1000 Aussies and Ruskies could volunteer to conditionally work for an election campaign as long as there was no compensation involved. If this activity was being subsidized by their native governments I don't think it would be legal.

Click to expand...

I'll refer to Aussies to avoid the Russian hubris aspect...

Push the limits:
say, a non-state not for profit organization (NFP) is set up in Australia with the sole purpose of providing volunteers on the ground, to aid a political party/candidate in the USA.
Say that NFP provided all expenses paid and involved 10,000 ( or any extreme number you may choose) volunteers to solicit, by door knocking, support for that USA presidential candidate.
Do you see where I am leading with this...

Assume we are now talking about Russians that are funded by some billionaire group in Russia (not state affiliated)... what then?

To me the issue is incredibly grey as to legality and enforcement, yet obviously foreign interference is highly possible and most likely probable in the future and is a result of an increasing globalization of vested interests.

In Australia we too are wrestling with the issue of foreign election interference, especially regarding Chinese vested interest groups (real estate, resource sector etc) that would plead zero state affiliation. To be frank IMO it is a mess and it will only get worse as globalization becomes more pervasive. Chinese influence in the Pacific has been increasing dramatically lately. The interference does not have to be from a competitor nation either. I might add.
I have no idea what the solution would be... but it does mean that our ideas of "clean" elections needs to change.
Essentially the issue is how globalization of vested interests can be managed in a way that avoids undue political interference in the democratic process.

Push the limits:
say, a non-state not for profit organization (NFP) is set up in Australia with the sole purpose of providing volunteers on the ground, to aid a political party/candidate in the USA.
Say that NFP provided all expenses paid and involved 10,000 ( or any extreme number you may choose) volunteers to solicit, by door knocking, support for that USA presidential candidate.
Do you see where I am leading with this...

Click to expand...

I read the FEC guidelines for volunteer activity as addressing individual volunteers, and not organized groups of such. If it were 1000 unrelated individuals, it’s legal. If 1000 individuals organized and supported by a specific foreign entity of some sort, then it’s probably not.

Nixon is one of only three U.S. presidents against whom articles of impeachment have been reported to the full House for consideration. The other two–Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998–were both impeached; both were also acquitted from all charges following a Senate trial. The impeachment process against Nixon is the only one resulting in the departure from office of its target, albeit indirectly.
=====================================
History.com:
1974: House begins impeachment of Nixon
On this day in 1974, the House Judiciary Committee recommends that America’s 37th president, Richard M. Nixon, be impeached and removed from office. The impeachment proceedings resulted from a series of political scandals involving the Nixon administration that came to be collectively known as Watergate.

The Watergate scandal first came to light following a break-in on June 17, 1972, at the Democratic Party’s national headquarters in the Watergate apartment-hotel complex in Washington, D.C. A group of men linked to the White Housewere later arrested and charged with the crime. Nixon denied any involvement with the break-in, but several of his staff members were eventually implicated in an illegal cover-up and forced to resign. Subsequent government investigations revealed “dirty tricks” political campaigning by the Committee to Re-Elect the President, along with a White House “enemies list.” In July 1973, one of Nixon’s former staff members revealed the existence of secretly taped conversations between the president and his aides. Nixon initially refused to release the tapes, on grounds of executive privilege and national security, but a judge later ordered the president to turn them over. The White House provided some but not all of the tapes, including one from which a portion of the conversation appeared to have been erased. . . .
Only two other presidents in U.S. history have been impeached: Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998.
====================================

So we have this farcical situation which leads me to believe that the Mueller investigation team is more focused on other issues and that allegations/evidence of Russian meddling/collusion in the election is a smoke screen hiding other more important investigations.

Click to expand...

They are felony crimes and serious charges - and direct betrayals of the oath of Presidential office.
They are also Mueller's mandate - the central investigation, from which all others branch.
There are no charges in play more serious.

Furthermore, Democrats have to consider how this would affect their chances of winning the next Presidential election (or the upcoming mid-term elections).

Click to expand...

One hopes at least some Democrats would also consider the welfare of the country, as a competing priority. And that is a reasonable hope - that is the discussion, regarding the Dems.

Nobody hopes any Republicans would. Every informed person takes for granted that short and medium term political considerations will dominate all Republican behavior in this matter, without serious discussion, as it has for this entire event and the twenty years prior.

Why don't you make that point then, instead of blaming billvon for taking you at your word? Dereliction of sworn duty would be a reason for impeachment. Golfing would not.

Click to expand...

i did. you and billvon are making a purely semantic argument. I'm dealing with cause and effect. If i got shit face drunk fucked with an alligator it would be proper to say i died cause i got drunk that was the what led to it. just like when a military officer is discharged for adultry. it would be for conduct unbecoming but that doesn't change the actual reason.

i did. you and billvon are making a purely semantic argument. I'm dealing with cause and effect. If i got shit face drunk fucked with an alligator it would be proper to say i died cause i got drunk that was the what led to it. just like when a military officer is discharged for adultry. it would be for conduct unbecoming but that doesn't change the actual reason.

Click to expand...

Then say so and stop defending it.

You've been quite shirty with billvon; he has no obligation to grant you any leeway in your oblique writing style.

i did. you and billvon are making a purely semantic argument. I'm dealing with cause and effect. If i got shit face drunk fucked with an alligator it would be proper to say i died cause i got drunk that was the what led to it.

Click to expand...

Exactly. It would not make sense to say a trip to the Everglades caused your death.

Just like when a military officer is discharged for adultry. it would be for conduct unbecoming but that doesn't change the actual reason.

Click to expand...

Another good example. He would be discharged for conduct unbecoming an officer, not for sex.

Adultery is not listed as an offense in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). ... Article 134 simply prohibits conduct which is of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, or conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline. If you ain't doing that, then feel free to copulate all you want.

There is a non fraternization rule for officers only. Officers copulating with officers ain't a problem. Officers copulating with enlisted is a problem for the officer involved regardless of the marital status of either participant. It's even worse if they are in the same unit or deployed.